Residents were disappointed on Thursday evening that Croydon’s Labour-run Council approved a flatted development in Woodcote Park Avenue, despite it being one of the borough’s Local Areas of Special Character (LASC).

The application at 12 Woodcote Park Avenue proposed the demolition of the existing house and the erection in its place of a two storey building comprising 8 two bedroom flats and 14 associated parking spaces.

The development was recommended by Croydon Council planning officers for refusal. Croydon’s officers principally argued that it would be an overdevelopment of the site out of keeping with the character of the LASC and detrimental to the visual amenity of the street scene by reason of its scale, massing, prominent siting, form and layout, including large areas of hardstanding.

However, the Chair of the committee, Woodside Councillor Paul Scott, led members by proposing approval against the advice of Croydon’s planning department. Five other members of the Committee sided with him and it was passed.

By setting a precedent for a flatted development in this road, this application was always destined to be contentious. The turn of events is worrying for residents, if repeated, because many may have been lulled into a false sense of security by the officer recommendation to refuse and didn't turn out in force to oppose the development on the night.

Both the Purley and Woodcote Residents Association and the South Woodcote Residents Association had lodged objections, in addition to local councillors and Croydon South MP Chris Philp.

Residents who did attend said afterwards the decision, sadly, would change the character of Woodcote Park Avenue forever.

The worn paint markings in the town centre have been causing some concern, and I've been on a mission to get them re-painted. As ever, never an easy process...

Some years ago a decent investment in the public realm of Coulsdon high street was made, and the standard tarmac approach to road maintenance was forgone in favour of some nice granite stone slabs. The standard road markings were applied using the usual paint, but the two do not work together as well as in other parts of the borough. This has lead to much easier than expected wear and tear, so the point where road markings are barely visible. In the case of the zebra crossing outside Tesco's, this is clearly dangerous, but it also affects driving and parking behaviour up and down the road.

The Council is recommending using a sprayed on paint as opposed to the usual thermoplastic paints – something that they use extensively in Westminster. The Council is working hoping to do a test initially to see how effective the treatment is and are intending to use the forthcoming closures in Malcolm Road to facilitate this – the entry point adjacent to Waitrose. This will likely take place 19-23rd November.

Hopefully this trial will be a success and the markings can be re-applied soon after.

Remembrance Sunday11/11/2018 22:54:00.......Posted by Luke Clancy

"In war, there are no unwounded soldiers."

The Remembrance Service at Croydon Minster and the wreath-laying in the Town Centre was very well-attended event this year, at the centenary of the ending of the First World War.

It was great to see so many members of the armed forces and uniformed groups who marched from North End, and the wreaths that were laid to honour those who made the ultimate sacrifice.

I've sent versions of the below letter to the CEO of both Govia Thameslink Railway and Network Rail after learning that there is apparently to be a network-wide rollout of pay-to-use cash machines at stations across Croydon. I've also sent on to the MD for Cardtronics UK. I'll update with a reply as soon as I received one.

I am writing as a councillor in the London Borough of Croydon, for the ward of Coulsdon Town.

Over the last few weeks cash machines in stations across the borough have started to charge residents for the withdrawal of funds - £1.99 per withdrawal. These include those at East Croydon station and South Croydon station.

Govia Thameslink Railway have reportedly told commuters that the decision was taken by an organisation called Cardtronics, and that all cash machines on all stations will be pay-to-use by the end of October 2018. Croydon Council has informed me that these machines are on land owned by Network Rail.

It is reported that Croydon has more pay-to-use cash machines than any other London borough. These machines particularly affect those on low-incomes as they are likely to have a relatively small amount of money in their account. The news that this is to become standardised across the network is therefore deeply concerning.

Those on low incomes rely heavily on cash to manage their finances. The Citizens Advice Bureau revealed that despite a third of all cash machines in 2011 being pay-to-use, ‘almost 97 per cent of UK cash withdrawals at UK cash machines were made free of charge, demonstrating our understandable reluctance as a society to pay to access our own money.’

In January this year the Government introduced rules which say that all surcharges for using credit and debit cards should be halted.

With this in mind, I would appreciate your answers to the following:

Was Network Rail consulted by Cardtronics about the change to charge for cash machine use on your property?

If you were, could you please outline what has changed recently to warrant now charging for this service? If you were not, what is your position on the fee change?

Given the well-documented detrimental impact of pay-to-use machines on those on low-incomes, could you please outline why Network Rail felt this change was necessary?

Is Network Rail benefiting financially from this decision?

I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.

Kind Regards,

Cllr Mario Creatura, Coulsdon Town

And to Cardtronics:

I am writing as a councillor in the London Borough of Croydon, for the ward of Coulsdon Town.

Over the last few weeks cash machines in stations across the borough have started to charge residents for the withdrawal of funds - £1.99 per withdrawal. These include those at East Croydon station and South Croydon station.

Govia Thameslink Railway have reportedly told commuters that the decision was taken by your organisation, and that all cash machines on all stations will be pay-to-use by the end of October 2018. Croydon Council has informed me that these machines are on land owned by Network Rail. Statements from Cardtronics say that this hike is due to rental increases, but LINK claim this only accounts for 1.5p per transaction, significantly lower than the £1.99 being charged.

It is reported that Croydon has more pay-to-use cash machines than any other London borough. These machines particularly affect those on low-incomes as they are likely to have a relatively small amount of money in their account. The news that this is to become standardised across the network is therefore deeply concerning.

Those on low incomes rely heavily on cash to manage their finances. The Citizens Advice Bureau revealed that despite a third of all cash machines in 2011 being pay-to-use, ‘almost 97 per cent of UK cash withdrawals at UK cash machines were made free of charge, demonstrating our understandable reluctance as a society to pay to access our own money.’

In January this year the Government introduced rules which say that all surcharges for using credit and debit cards should be halted.

With this in mind, I would appreciate answers to the following:

How did you consult consumers about the change to charge for cash machine use in your machines?

Could you please outline in detail your position about why the change was warranted?

Do you envision that these charges are permanent?

Do you believe the information supplied by LINK is correct? If it is, how can you justify to customers the blanket fee increase?

Given the well-documented detrimental impact of pay-to-use machines on those on low-incomes, what is your message to those on low incomes who rely on cash machines like yours?

Given the information supplied by LINK, is Cardronics benefiting financially from this decision?

I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.

The mystery of the missing fireworks banner...29/10/2018 16:35:00.......Posted by Mario Creatura

Councillors from just across the borough border in Chipstead recently put up a banner advertising a nearby charity fireworks display on the fence leading up to the Cane Hill estate in Coulsdon.

This disappeared within a week or so and so far enquiries have drawn a blank.

Croydon Council has said that it was not removed by them.

If you have any idea where the banner is, or who might have removed it, then please do let me know by emailing mario.creatura@croydon.gov.uk!

Air pollution concern at Coulsdon South station28/10/2018 17:44:00.......Posted by Mario Creatura

I've taken up the case of a resident who noticed that a number of drivers waiting to pick up passengers at Coulsdon South station appear to be leaving their engines running.

There's no real need for this, particularly if the wait for for a decent length of time, and the resident is concerned about the air pollution in the local area.

I've written to Network Rail who manage the site to ask if they'd consider a sign similar to that used in Kensington and Chelsea to advise drivers that it is not permitted to have the car stationary and still running.

Today is the deadline to respond to the Council's 'Evolution of the Suburbs' planning document, a piece of work that will provide the framework for a significant number of buildings and developments across Croydon.

Residents have until tomorrow to feed their views into the process - my submission is below. You can find the full document here and email your views to ldf@croydon.gov.uk.

___________

To whom it may concern,

I am writing as one of the elected representatives for Coulsdon Town ward, please accept this as a submission on the SPD2 Document that is currently out for consultation.

I have a number of concerns about the language used in the paper, not least that it appears to be a subjective document that raises significantly more questions than it is supposed to clarify. The report should be more of a definitive piece of work, instead it appears to allow a substantial amount of interpretation which could have detrimental effects on the character of Croydon.

There appears to be scant suggestion about developing the infrastructure needed to support significant population growth – was this not considered to be something merited in the document? Will there be a supplementary paper outlining the plans for increasing capacity on roads and services to cope with the residential increase? My fear is that the impartiality of the Planning Committee necessitates that each application is considered on its own merits, but that this does not factor in the wider implications of many applications sequentially being considered for the same area over a period of months. Put simply – if 10 applications are considered and approved in the same area over the period of 12 months, what guarantee is there in SPD2 that commensurate infrastructure improvements will be developed and progressed to aid in the increase in parking, sewage and other vital requirements for a good standard of living?

A good example of this is contained in paragraph 2.30 on car parking – an issue that is plaguing my ward in Coulsdon. Multiple blocks of flats are being erected, without commensurate car parking spaces. Residents moving into the properties, knowing that parking space on the street is limited, still bring their vechiles. They feel it will be the job of others to abandon their cars. Coulsdon is on the edge of the North Downs and is quite hilly. Whilst public transport is well-connected, the train service quality is intermittent and most modes do not reach out into Reigate, Banstead and wider Surrey in way that means cars lose their value. The increase in population due to the density of the new developments means there is a huge volume of vehicles needing parking space, causing traffic gridlock most mornings and evenings. Parking is not a luxury, it is a basic necessity to support the sustainability of development and communities.

Has the recently rolled out amended waste service programme being accounted for in paragraph 2.31? If not, then this will have implications on the ability for officers and councillors to interpret the report.

Whilst I am fully supportive of the need to develop new housing opportunities, these can and must be done in line with the reasonable support of the local residents already habiting in the area. Paragraph 4.2 details the papers support for ‘character’ but then details the three residential extension approaches of subservient, innovative and seamless. Can a development policy simultaneously respect the existing ‘character’ whilst being ‘subservient/innovative’? I am fearful that good quality affordable housing that fits into the local community aesthetic will not be a red-line in the document, meaning anything can and will happen to my residents.

In paragraph 2.7 and 2.8 the three types of approaches to character is described as ‘sympathetic and faithful’, ‘innovative and original’, ‘contemporary reinterpretation’. Surely any application, development or scheme can apply to any of these? Isn’t the scope for interpretation so large that this set of descriptions is legally meaningless? How can it be measured and enforced on each application? What happens if it can be easily justified (due to its lack of definitiveness) that a scheme has breached this criterion?

This fear for the respect of the local residents and existing character is not eased when I read paragraph 2.2 which details the overarching principles for development: to provide the right mix of homes in the right location, improve or positively contribute to local character and minimise impact on neighbouring amenity. How is this monitored and maintained? Is this rhetoric or are there tangible figures and targets that can be applied to what is a laudable aim? What is to stop someone ignoring this piece of guidance? To what extent are the views of the local people and their representatives taken into account on inappropriate developments that do not fit this nebulous aspiration?

This subjectivity and lack of clarity also exists in figures 1.3a, 1.3b and 1.3c which detail the evolution of the different types of suburbs, but are open to interpretation.

I believe that SPD2 requires a substantial reworking to address the concerns I’ve outlined above. These are very real, practical fears that I know many of my residents feel. Each time they attend a Planning Committee meeting to comment on a scheme they leave disheartened. I hope that by engaging with some of my concerns that this may be limited in the future.

Croydon badly needs good quality, affordable family homes. I know my residents would support them if they are proposed, and this plan is vital in making that happen.

Kind Regards,

Cllr Mario Creatura, Coulsdon Town

Response to local planning consultation SPD214/10/2018 17:59:00.......Posted by Luke Clancy

Documents setting out planning guidance for the borough and how the Council will engage with stakeholders are available for comment. Below are some of the points from my response to the consultation on Suburban Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (SPD2).

Figures 1.3a, 1.3b and 1.3c are used to justify expected development patterns including ‘backland development’ in the suburbs over a period of 10 – 15 years, “so that change is gradual and can be managed to ensure that the benefits of such growth are optimised.” But the examples given of the types of development expected are not defined in sufficient granularity and are too scattergun to give an objective sense of whether what is being proposed would be acceptable.

In terms of how acceptable a development might be to existing residents, the bullet points provided in paragraph 2.2 will be key, in particular emphasis on two of them: whether a proposal improves or positively contributes to local character; and how the impact on neighbouring amenity can be minimised as far as possible. Much will depend on how sympathetically these policies are applied.

Para 2.3.2: “Smaller suburban proposals providing up to 9 dwellings should also seek to maximise the number of dwellings with 3 or more bedrooms.” It would be helpful if this could be expressed more accurately, perhaps setting a target or requirement for three bedroom family units in developments of 9 dwellings or less.

Para 2.3.6: “A development proposal that seeks to deliver a scheme that could form part of a larger potential development on the same or adjoining land will be assessed as an application for the larger development potential.” Whilst the intention of this policy might be laudable, I have concerns that in borderline cases this could result in developments being tipped over the threshold because more studios, one- and two-bedroom units are built at the expense of larger three bedroom properties which would be suitable for families.

Paras 2.3 & 2.4: “Optimising sites building across boundaries.” Whilst in economic terms this makes sense, in reality the developments that result from such consolidation may not be sympathetic to an area if they create ‘mega’ blocks. The schema in Figure 2.4a is an alarming example of the type of over-development that could result.

Paras 2.6.3 and 2.6.4: ‘Minimal necessary car parking will be the starting point for all development proposals and the borough will encourage lower parking provision in areas of PTAL 4 and above.’ I can see why the Council may want to do this. The Croydon Local Plan currently seeks to reduce the need to travel by concentrating development in areas with a higher PTAL rating. As such, from 2011 to 2014 the majority of new homes (58%) were in areas with a PTAL rating of at least 3 - typically areas that have already undergone a degree of intensification. Only 10% of homes were built in areas with a PTAL of 4. The proposals therefore seek to increase density in less urban areas. But this ignores the fact that areas with PTAL ratings of 4 can have quite patchy access to public transport. Also, that residents in those areas will still aspire to owning a car. Any policy should seek to balance these challenges in part by ensuring sufficient provision of more public transport and other sustainable methods of transport, as is encouraged in 2.6.8.

Para 2.7.2 refers encouragingly to some areas within Croydon “being defined by the predominance of certain types of homes”. This aspiration may give hope to residents that the Council will extend protection to what is perceived to be the character of their areas on those grounds. But the three approaches to how to respond to local character in the design of new developments that the Council goes on to endorse in Para 2.8 would appear to allow a very broad interpretation of what is acceptable in any area, if interpreted loosely. A braver and more specific interpretation of what is acceptable would be welcomed in the SPD.

Para 2.9.9: “Where there is a concern that a development would appear overbearing to a neighbouring property and/or create a poorly designed streetscene, they will not be supported.” This is to be welcomed.

Para 2.15.2: “Proposals which span plot boundaries may seek to achieve this through stepping form to create a link element between two main building forms located on each of the original plots.” I am not convinced that such designs necessarily reduce sufficiently the sense of massing created by developments that incorporate links.

Para 2.23: A prohibition on materials that are proven not to weather well or provide longevity is to be supported.

Last week at a meeting of Croydon Council’s Streets and Environment Scrutiny Sub-Committee, I challenged the Cabinet Member, Cllr Stuart Collins, when he said that Labour is looking to renege on a manifesto pledge to run a free bulky waste collection service.

Labour only made the pledge after the Conservatives had come up with the idea earlier this year. We put the policy to tackle the fly-tipping plaguing Croydon’s streets in our manifesto ahead of May’s local elections. We were pleased when Labour later also recognised the soundness of the idea by copying it.

It would be cynical of Labour to steal this policy only to drop it once they got re-elected.

The free bulky waste collection service is extremely popular, but Labour now says it is expensive to run and creates a too much of a financial pressure on the Council's budget.

At the meeting, Cllr Collins claimed the free bulky waste service was always intended as a “trial” to see what effect it would have on fly-tipping. But when he was challenged to demonstrate it was only intended as a trial - and not introduced to residents as a more permanent measure - he could not do so.

Even Cllr Collins’ Labour colleagues on the Committee then went on to express their concerns that a review of one of their manifesto pledges was taking place so soon after this year's election.

The Conservatives will continue to hold Labour to account over the withdrawal of a key policy to tackle fly-tipping in the borough.

Residents in Ashdown Park felt that as their houses all have small frontages they did not have the facilities for storing two large bins, one medium sized bin and a food caddy in a discreet way.

In 2005, the estate was granted an exemption from the Council’s requirement for landfill collections to be from medium sized wheelie bins, as these would not fit inside the bin cupboards.

Shortly after the petition was sent in, the Council granted a continuation of the concession for retaining the smaller cupboard-size landfill bins.

Residents do support aspirations in the borough to increase recycling rates but say they already separate their rubbish by type and think it unlikely that they are withholding materials that could be recycled if bigger bins are provided.

Looking around the estate, residents say the majority of houses are struggling to hide the new bins away. All the houses on the estate have covenants that the associated grounds be maintained in a good and tidy condition, and the front gardens be open plan - the latter making it difficult to store the bins.

Please do contact us with any issues or concerns you may have. We answer all our constituents' correspondence and value your comments. If you want your concern addressed by your local team, please follow the link above.